MR. RUSSERT: Good evening, and welcome. We have some big issues
to talk about tonight, so let's start right now.

Senator Obama, I'd like to start with you. General Petraeus in
his testimony before Congress, later echoed by President Bush, gave
every indication that in January of 2009 when the next president takes
office, there will be 100,000 troops in Iraq. You're the president.
What do you do? You said you would end the war. How do you do it in
January of 2009?

And let me also say that had my judgment prevailed back in 2002,
we wouldn't be in this predicament. I was opposed to this war from
the start, have been opposed to this war consistently. But I have
also said that there are no good options now; there are bad options
and worse options.

I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to
this war before I take office. And I think that it is very important
at this stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has
failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this
war.

If there are still large troop presences in when I take office,
then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and initiate a phased redeployment. We've got to be as careful
getting out as we were careless getting in. But military personnel
indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month.
I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops
out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that
have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in
counterterrorism activities in Iraq.

The important principle, though, is there are not going to be any
military solutions to the problem in Iraq. There has to be a
political accommodation, and the best way for us to support the troops
and to stabilize the situation in Iraq is to begin that phased
redeployment.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of
your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S.
troops in Iraq?

SENATOR OBAMA: I think it's hard to project four years from now,
and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency
will be out there.

What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when
I take office, which it appears there may be unless we can get some of
our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding
without a timetable, if there's no timetable, then I will drastically
reduce our presence there to the
mission of protecting our embassy,
protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out
counterterrorism activities there.

I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I
don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to
be three or four years out.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Democrats all across the country
believed in 2006, when the Democrats were elected to the majority in
the House and Senate, that that was a signal to end the war, and the
war would end.

You have said that will not pledge to have all troops out by the
end of your first term, 2013. Why not?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by
the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very
difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. You know, we do
not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're
going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal?

That's why last spring I began pressing the Pentagon to be very
clear about whether or not they were planning to bring our troops out.
And what I found was that they weren't doing the kind of planning that
is necessary, and we've been pushing them very hard to do so.

You know, with respect to the question, though, about the
Democrats taking control of the Congress, I think the Democrats have
pushed extremely hard to change this president's course in Iraq.
Today I joined with many of my colleagues in voting for Senator
Biden's plan, slightly different than he'd been presenting it, but
still the basic structure was to move toward what is a de facto
partition if the Iraqi people and government so choose.

The Democrats keep voting for what we believe would be a better
course.
Unfortunately as you know so well, the
Democrats don't have the
majority in the Senate to be able to get past that 60-vote blockade
that the Republicans can still put up. But I think every one of us
who is still in the Senate -- Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Senator
Obama and myself -- we are trying every single day. And of course,
Congressman Kucinich is in the House.

But I think it is fair to say that the president has made it
clear. He intends to have about 100,000 or so troops when he leaves
office -- the height of irresponsibility, that he would leave this war
to his successor. I will immediately move to begin bringing our
troops home when I am inaugurated.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of
your first term, in 2013, all
U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?

MR. EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. I -- well, I can
tell you what I would do as president. If I -- when I'm sworn into
office come January of 2009, if there are in fact, as General Petraeus
suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will
immediately draw down 40 (thousand) to 50,000 troops and, over the
course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat troops
out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are in fact out of Iraq.

I think the problem is, and it's what you've just heard
discussed, is, we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy
has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in
Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.
I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will
be
necessary to accomplish that -- 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

But I do say -- I want to add to things I just heard. I think
that it's true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible
course to end the war in Iraq. There are, however, differences
between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people
have differences about this issue. For example, I heard Senator
Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in
Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we
should continue combat missions in Iraq, and when I'm on a stage with
the Republican nominee come the fall of 2008, I'm going to make it
clear that I'm for ending the war. And the debate will be between a
Democrat who wants to bring the war to an end, get all American combat
troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants to continue the war.

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Richardson.

SENATOR CLINTON: Tim, could I just clarify that? You know, I said
there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still
exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat,
Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast
majority of our combat troops should be out.

MR. EDWARDS: But can I just say, my only point is I don't have
any doubt that Senator Clinton wants to take a responsible course.
There is a difference, however, in how we would go about this, and I
think Democratic primary voters are entitled to know that difference.
And the difference is really very simple. I would have our combat
troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I would not
continue combat missions in Iraq. Combat missions mean that the war
is continuing. I believe this war needs to be brought to an end.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you send combat troops back in if there was
genocide?

MR. EDWARDS: I believe that America along with the rest of the
world would have a responsibility to respond to genocide. It's not
something we should do alone. In fact, if we do it alone, it could be
counterproductive.

In fact, if I can go one step further beyond what you just asked,
I think the president of the United States -- and I as president --
would have a responsibility, as we begin to bring our combat troops
out of Iraq, to prepare for two possibilities. One is the possibility
that -- the worst possibility, which is that genocide breaks out,
Shi'a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. I think we need to
be preparing for that with the international community now, not wait.
And second, the possibility that this war starts to spill outside the
borders of Iraq. And that's a very difficult thing to contain,
because we know historically that it's difficult to contain a civil
war.

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, you have said that you will
bring home all troops within a year. You've heard your three other
opponents say they can't do it in four years. How can you do it in
one year?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I have a fundamental difference with
Senator Obama, Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton. Here's my
position. Their position basically is changing the mission.

My position in bringing all troops out of Iraq is to end the war. The
American people want us to end this war. Our kids are dying -- the
bloodiest last three months -- and my position is this, that you
cannot start the reconciliation of Iraq, a political settlement, an
all-Muslim peacekeeping force to deal with security and boundaries and
possibly this issue of a separation, which is a plan that I do believe
makes sense, until we get all our troops out, because they have become
targets.

And I also disagree with Senator Clinton. I don't believe the
Congress has done enough to end this war.

(Cross talk.)

MR. RUSSERT: Governor, how are you going to do this in one year?

GOV. RICHARDSON: We have been able to move our troops within
three months -- 240,000 -- in and out of Iraq through Kuwait. This is
what I would do.
I would bring them out through roads through Kuwait
and through Turkey. It would take persuading Turkey. The issue is
light equipment. I would leave some of the light equipment behind.

But I believe what is fundamental here is that leaving any troop
behind will prevent us from moving forward to secure some kind of
stability in the region. I would invite Iran, I would invite Syria,
and I would make sure
that the entire issue is also tied to stability
in the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

You cannot deal with the Iraq issue alone. You have to deal with it
with the entire region.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, you've heard this discussion. Where
do you come down?

SENATOR DODD: Well, Tim, I -- the question is not just how you
bring the troops out, but why are we there? As president of the
United States, your first responsibility is to guarantee the safety
and security of the American people. And so the question you must ask
yourself as president: Is the continuation of our military presence
enhancing that goal?

I happen to believe very strongly that this policy of ours,
militarily (sic) involvement in Iraq, is counterproductive. We're
less safe, less secure, more vulnerable and more isolated today as a
result of the policy. So I believe that we ought to begin that
process of redeployment here.

I would simultaneously engage in the kind of robust diplomacy
that's been totally missing from this administration, to enhance our
own interests in the region as well as to provide some additional
security for Iraq. You can do this, Tim. Practically, it can be
done, by military planners -- can tell you -- you can move a brigade
to a brigade to a brigade and half, maybe even two a month out of
Iraq. So the time frame we're talking about is critical.

But Congress has an obligation here. It's not enough that we
just draft timetables. The Constitution gives the Congress of the
United States a unique power, and that is the power of the purse. As
long as we continue drafting these lengthy resolutions and amendments
here, talking about timelines and dates, we're not getting to the
fundamental power that exists in the Congress.

And that is to terminate the funding of this effort here, give us a
new direction. As everyone who's looked at this issue over the last
two or three years have concluded, there is no military solution here,
and we
need to do far more to protect our interests not only in that
region, but throughout the world. We're not doing it with this
policy.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge
as commander in chief that you have all troops out of Iraq by January
of 2013?

SENATOR DODD: I will get that done.

MR. RUSSERT: You'll get it done.

SENATOR DODD: Yes, I will, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, would you get it done?

SENATOR BIDEN: Tim, we're begging the question here. Everyone says
there's no political -- there's no military solution, only a political
solution. We offered a political solution today, and it got 75 votes.
And it said -- it rejected fundamentally the president's position that
there's a possibility of establishing a strong central government in
Iraq and said we're going to have a federal system, bring in the rest
of the world to support establishing a federal system. That will end
the civil war. That will allow us to bring our troops home. That is
the thing that will allow us to come home without leaving chaos
behind.

Now, here's the deal. The deal is that to say that you are going
to bring all troops home from the region -- I assume that's what you
mean --

SENATOR DODD: From Iraq.

SENATOR BIDEN: Just from Iraq. You're going to bring all troops
home from Iraq. If in fact there is no political solution by the time
I am president, then I would bring them out because all they are is
fodder.

But -- but -- if you go along with the Biden plan that got 75
votes today and you have a stable Iraq like we have in Bosnia -- we've
had 20,000 Western troops in Bosnia for 10 years. Not one has been
killed -- not one. The genocide has ended. So it would depend on the
circumstances when I became president.

MR. RUSSERT: You would not make a commitment to have them all
out by --

SENATOR BIDEN: I would make a commitment to have them all out if
there is not a
political reconciliation, because they're just fodder.

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Kucinich, please.

REP. KUCINICH: As the only one on this stage who actually voted
against the war and voted 100 percent of the time against funding the
war, I have a rather unique perspective. I've introduced legislation,
H.R. 1234, which is the plan to end the Iraq War. To me, it is
fairly
astonishing to have Democrats, who took back the power of the House
and the Senate in 2006, to stand on this stage and tell the American
people that this war will continue to 2013 and perhaps past that.

I want everyone to know. I want the American people to know that
I've been on this from the beginning, and I know that we can get out
of there three months after I take office, or after the new president
takes office, if one is determined to do that. And I want to make it
clear that the plan includes enemy occupation, closing the bases,
bringing the troops home, setting in motion a program of
reconciliation, not partition, between the Iraqs -- between the
Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds, having an honest reconstruction
program, having a program of reparations, and giving the people
of
Iraq full control over their oil, which currently most of the people
on this stage have said should be privatized in one way, shape or
form.

And so I believe that if we're really going to have peace, no
partition, let them -- let them unite. We remember what Lincoln said
years ago. It's true for Iraq, as well. A house divided against
itself cannot stand. If we divide Iraq, essentially we're going to be
setting the stage for more war. And I stand for strength through
peace -- a whole new approach.

MR. RUSSERT: But you'll pledge -- excuse me, excuse me. You'll
pledge to have all troops out by January of 2013.

REP. KUCINICH: By -- by April of 2007, and you can mark that on
your calendars if you want, to take a new direction.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, it's September of '07 now, so we're going to
have a problem. (Laughter.)

REP. KUCINICH: Well, make that -- make that 2009. I'm ready to
be president today. (Laughter.)

MR. RUSSERT:
All right. We'll give you -- I want to give
Senator Gravel a chance.

Senator Gravel, I've listened to you very carefully in this
campaign. You were in the Senate.

MR. GRAVEL: You're one of the few that has.

MR. RUSSERT: You were in the Senate, and you take credit for
stopping the draft. If you were a senator right now, what advice
would you give your colleagues still in Congress about how they can
stop
the war even though they don't have enough votes to stop a debate
or to override a veto?

What should they do?

MR. GRAVEL: Well, the first thing, you stop the debate by voting
every single day on cloture, every day, 20 days, and you'll overcome
cloture. The president vetoes a law; it comes back to the Congress,
and in the House at noon, every single day, you vote to override the
president's veto. And in 40 days, the American people will have
weighed in, put the pressure on those -- you tell me that the votes
aren't there, you go get them by the scruff of the neck. That's what
you do. You make them vote.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, are you suggesting that these candidates
suspend their campaigns, go back to Washington and for 40 consecutive
days vote on the war?

MR. GRAVEL: If it stops the killing, my God, yes, do it! And,
Tim, you're really missing something. This is Fantasyland. We're
talking about ending the war; my God, we're just starting a war right
today. There was a vote in the Senate today -- Joe Lieberman, who
authored the Iraq resolution, has offered another resolution, and it
essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I
want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting
against, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're
not going to get another shot at this, because what's happened if this
war ensues -- we invade and they're looking for an excuse to do it.

SENATOR CLINTON: Yes. Let me respond. My understanding of the
revolutionary guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism. It is
manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. It is
certainly the main agent of support for Hezbollah, Hamas and others,
and in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to
designate it as a terrorist organization, which gives us the options
to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin
to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran. We
wouldn't be where we are today if the Bush administration hadn't
outsourced our diplomacy with respect to Iran and ignored Iran and
called it part of the "axis of evil." Now we've got to make up for
lost time on the ground.

MR. RUSSERT: I just want to pick up on Senator Gravel's point.

Senator Dodd, is it practical for you as a senator and others who
now serve in Congress to go back to Washington and for 40 consecutive
days try to cut off the funding for the war, defend your campaigns if
necessary, and bring the issue to
crystallize it in a way that the
American people will understand exactly what's going on?

SENATOR DODD: Well, I think we're going to have that opportunity
over and over again in the coming days. There's going to be a
request, I think, for something in the
neighborhood of $200 billion
that the administration's going to seek to continue to prosecute the
war. So we'll have our chances to do it.

I think it's a little unrealistic to assume every single day you
do that, Mike, but certainly you can do this when the opportunity
arises.

And that, Tim, is the point I was trying to make to you at a
moment ago here. We need to be understanding what powers exist in the
institution of the Congress, those of us who serve there, and use that
opportunity to do what the Constitution's given us. And that is to
stop the funding. That's what we need to be doing.

Now look, I realize you may not get 60 votes or even 51 votes for
this. But I think clarity and leadership are called for at this hour
here. If you're going to seek the presidency of the United States and
you're in a position today to do something about this, then it's -- in
my view, it's the opportunity to stand up and lead on this issue, to
bring this war, which is doing great damage to our country, to a halt.
It's hurting our nation terribly, and it needs to be brought to a
halt. The power of the purse allows you to do that.

MR. RUSSERT: I want -- I -- we have so much to cover. I want to
talk about Iran. And this is --

SENATOR BIDEN: Tim, can I make a clarification, please?

MR. RUSSERT: We have --

SENATOR BIDEN: What we voted on was not partition. I don't want
anybody thinking it was partition. And it's the only time we got 26
Republicans to reject the president's --

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, in 1981 the Israelis took out a
nuclear reactor in Iraq. On September 6th, to the best of our
information, Israel attacked Syria because there was suspicion that
perhaps North Korea had put some nuclear materials in Syria.

If Israel concluded that Iran's nuclear capability threatened Israel's
security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?

SENATOR CLINTON: Tim, I think that's one of those hypotheticals
that --

MR. RUSSERT: It is not a hypothetical, Senator. It's real life.

SENATOR CLINTON: -- that is better not addressed at this time.

MR. RUSSERT: It's real --

SENATOR CLINTON: What is real life is what apparently happened in
Syria, so let's take that one step at a time.

MR. RUSSERT: But my question --

SENATOR CLINTON: I know what the question is.

MR. RUSSERT: The question is --

SENATOR CLINTON: But I think it's important to lay out what we know
about Syria.

We don't have any more information than what I have just
described. It is highly classified; it is not being shared. But I
don't want to go a step further and talk about what might or might not
happen down the road with Iran .

MR. RUSSERT: My question was --

SEN. CLINTON: But I think it is fair to say what happened in
Syria , so far as we know, I
support.

MR. RUSSERT: My question is, would the Israelis be justified if
they felt their security was being threatened by the presence of
a
nuclear presence in Iran , and they decided to take military action?
Would they be justified?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Tim, I'm not going to answer that because
what I understand is that --

(UNKNOWN). : I'll answer --

SENATOR CLINTON: -- there was -- there was evidence -- (interrupted
by laughter). Well, let me just finish -- (continued laughter,
applause) -- and then Mike and Dennis can answer.

But there was evidence of a North Korea freighter coming in with
supplies. There was intelligence and other kinds of verification. So
I don't think it's a question of if they feel it. That is a much
higher standard of proof. Apparently, it was met with respect to
Syria .

MR. RUSSERT: You will all be running against a Republican
opponent, perhaps Rudy Giuliani. This is what he said.
" Iran is not going to be allowed to build a nuclear power. If
they get to a point where they're going to become a nuclear power, we
will prevent them; we will set them back eight to 10 years. That is
not said as a threat; that should be said as a promise."

Would you make a promise as a potential commander in chief that
you will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and will use any
means to stop it?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, what I have said is that I will do
everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming an nuclear power,
including the use of diplomacy, the use of economic sanctions, opening
up direct talks. We haven't even tried. That's what is so
discouraging about this. So then you have the Republican candidates
on the other side jumping to the kind of statements that you just read
to us.
We need a concerted, comprehensive strategy to deal with Iran . We
haven't had it. We need it. And I will provide it.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, would
Israel be justified in
launching an attack on Iran if they felt their security was
jeopardized?

SENATOR OBAMA: I think it's important to back up for a second, Tim,
and just understand, number one, Iran
is in a stronger position now
than it was before the Iraq war because the Congress authorized the
president to go in. And so it indicates the degree to which we've got
to make sure, before we launch attacks or make judgments of the sort,
that we actually understand the intelligence and we have done a good
job in sorting it through.

Now, we don't know exactly what happened with respect to Syria .
We've gotten general reports, but we don't know all the specifics. We
got general reports in the run-up to the Iraq war that proved
erroneous, and a lot of people voted for that war as a consequence.

Now, we are a stalwart ally of Israel , and I think it is
important to understand that we will back them up in terms of their
security. But it is critical to understand that until we have taken
the diplomatic routes that are required to tighten economic sanctions

-- I have a plan right now to make sure that private pension funds in
this country can divest from their holdings in Iran . Until we have
gathered the international community to put the squeeze on Iran
economically, then
we shouldn't be having conversations about attacks
in Iran .
And I think what Mayor Giuliani said was irresponsible, because we
have not yet come to that point. We have not tried the other
approach.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would not offer a promise to the American
people, like Giuliani, that
Iran will not be able to develop and
become a nuclear power?

SENATOR OBAMA: I make an absolute commitment that we will do
everything we need to do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear
weapons. One of the things we have to try, though, is to talk
directly to
Iran , something that we have not been doing. And, you
know, one of the disagreements that we have on this stage is the
degree to which the next president is going to have to engage in the
sort of personal diplomacy that can bring about a new era in the
region. And, you know, that means talking to everybody. We've got to
talk to our enemies and not just our friends.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, would the Israelis be justified in
launching an attack if they felt their security was threatened by a
nuclear presence in Iran ?

MR. EDWARDS: Well, let me say first of all, I think there's a
clear, responsible course for America with respect to Iran , and that
responsible course is to recognize that Ahmadinejad is unpopular in
his own country. And if we work with our friends in Europe and the
European banking system, we can put a clear proposal on the table for
the Iranian people, sticks and carrots -- the carrots being we will
help you with your economy if in fact you give up your
nuclear
ambitions, the flip side being there will be severe economic sanctions
if you don't.

But I want to come back to a discussion that took place a few
minutes ago, to make sure everyone understands what Senator Gravel was
talking about and what Senator Clinton was talking about, because
there was a very important vote cast in the United States Senate
today. And it was basically in a resolution calling the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. I voted for this war in
Iraq and I was wrong to vote for this war and I accept responsibility
for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war. We learned a very
different lesson from that.

I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take
the first step on a road to war with Iran. And I think that vote
today, which Senator Biden and Senator Dodd voted against, and they
were correct to vote against it, is a clear indication of the approach
that all of us would take with the situation in Iran. Because what I
learned in my vote on Iraq was, you cannot give this president the
authority and you can't even give him the first step in that
authority, because he cannot be trusted. And that resolution that was
voted on today was a very clear indication --

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, would you make a solemn
commitment to the American people that Iran will not become a nuclear
power?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes. And this is what I would do. I would
approach it through diplomacy. A fundamental goal of our foreign
policy should be not to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Another cornerstone of our foreign policy should be the strength
and the security of Israel. So you cannot deny a nation the right to
legitimately defend itself.

Now, my approach is different. By the way, talking about
diplomacy, I've talked to a lot of these bad guys already. So I would
have a head start in personal diplomacy. You have to approach Iran.
First of all, you use diplomacy. Then you use sanctions.

The problem that we have with Iran is that we don't build the
international support that is needed to put economic pressure on Iran.

And my point here is that Iran is susceptible to economic
pressure. It can do so through -- they import half of their
foodstuffs, half of their
gasoline. They've got domestic unrest. I
would not talk necessarily to Ahmadinejad. I would talk to moderate
clerics. I would talk to business leaders. But 40 percent of the
Iranian people vote for moderate candidates for president. So you
first use diplomacy.

The problem, Tim, is, we can't build the international support
with the Europeans, with Russia that has leverage on Iran to
effectively pressure them not to build nuclear weapons and to stop
messing around in Iran (sic).

But it's called diplomacy, it's called negotiation; it's called
talking to Iran and Syria and trying to work out differences.

MR. RUSSERT: But the issue you may have to confront as
president, Israel took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. They attacked
Syria. They may conclude they need to attack Iran.

If they did and you were president, would you support Israel?

GOV. RICHARDSON: A fundamental tenet of American foreign policy
is to support Israel, but Tim, you've got to bring diplomacy. The
problem in the Middle East is there is no Middle East peace process.
There are no -- there is no Middle East peace envoy. We don't talk to
Syria. You've got Israel today less safe than it ever was. You've
got Hamas on one side. You've got Hezbollah. You've got Iran wanting
to build nuclear weapons. But you do it through diplomacy; you do it
through a Middle East peace process. Get Lebanon involved, get Syria
involved. The two-state solution. It's called diplomacy.

MR. RUSSERT: Before we take a break, I want to go to Allison
King of New England Cable News, who has been sifting through thousands
of questions from across the country and New England and here in New
Hampshire.

Allison, a question, please.

ALLISON KING (New England Cable News): Thank you, Tim.

Dozens of cities around the country, including several here,
right here in New England, have been designated as sanctuary cities.
These are communities that provide a safe haven for illegal
immigrants, where police are told not to involve themselves in
immigration matters.

Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the
reporting of illegal immigrants and, in fact, provide sanctuary to
these immigrants?

Governor Richardson, I'll start with you.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Are you asking me because I'm the Hispanic
here? But I'll answer. (Laughter.)

The answer is yes. The problem we have is the lack of a
comprehensive immigration policy. This is a federal responsibility.
But what we have is, because of the dysfunctional relationship between
the Congress and the president, there is no comprehensive immigration
bill. We need to fix the immigration system that is broken. We need
to find ways, number one, to increase security at the border with more
detection equipment, more border patrol, not this silly wall.

Secondly, those that knowingly hire illegal workers need to be
punished. Third, a foreign policy relationship with Mexico where you
say to Mexico: Start giving jobs to your people. At the very least,
don't give them maps on the easiest place to cross.

And lastly -- and lastly, a legalization program. Earn
legalization. Not amnesty, not citizenship, but a process where they
can earn their way into America. They can do it by learning English,
by paying back taxes, by passing a background check, by paying a fine
for having come in here illegally.
Then get behind those that are trying to get here legally, and then
increase the legal immigration quota, the H1-B visas.

But what you don't do is basically deport everybody; that makes
no sense. That's not America; that's not going to work. Is the
outline that I gave you messy? Yeah. Is it going to more
bureaucracy? Yes. But the problem is cities and
communities are
being victimized by the failure of the Congress and the president to
reach a resolution.

MS. KING: Your time is up, Governor Richardson.

I'd like to hear from Senator Biden. Would you allow these
cities to ignore the federal law?

SENATOR BIDEN: The reason that cities ignore the federal law is the
fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the
kind of enforcement at the federal level you need.

Pick up The New York Times today. There's a city not far across
the river from my state that imposed similar sanctions. And what they
found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps
-- in the dumpster; stores started closing, everything started to
happen, and they changed the policy.

Part of the problem is you have to have a federal
government that
can enforce laws. This administration's been fundamentally derelict
in not funding any of the requirements that are needed even to enforce
the existing law.

And the last point I'll make is Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what
the heck he's talking about. He's the most uninformed person on
American foreign policy now running for president -- (cheers,
applause) -- number one.

And number two, these guys -- these -- anyway. (Laughter.)
MS. KING: But yes or no.

SENATOR BIDEN: I wish I'd get to talk about something I know about
like foreign policy. You gotta count me in in this debate a little
bit.

MS. KING: So Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow those
cities to ignore the federal law?

SENATOR BIDEN: No.

MS. KING: Okay.

And I'd like to hear from Senator Dodd. New Haven, Connecticut
is on that list of sanctuary cities.

SENATOR DODD: I think in certain circumstances you have to here to
get -- New Haven, Connecticut was a good example here, where there was
a cooperative effort with the local police departments and others to
deal with health issues, crime problems and the like. The immigration
service came in and raided, basically, homes in that community causing
a great deal of disruption, disrupting the relationship that was being
developed with community leaders, including the local police, and
dealing with matters in that community.

We need to step back. What's been said by Bill Richardson and
Joe Biden is correct here. This was a failure of leadership again at
the national level. We had an opportunity to draft an immigration law
here that would have put us on the right track. I certainly endorse
everything Bill's said here in terms of the provision -- I think all
of us do here -- the general provisions.

We're a nation of immigrants here. We have succeeded in no small
measure because we have been a welcoming people here. We also
understand we cannot tolerate 400(,000) to 500,000 people coming to
this country as
undocumented workers each year. We need to have a far
better system in place that stops that flow coming in, to deal with
the 12 to 20 million who are here illegally. If in the meantime here,
we're dealing with children, we're dealing with crime problems, we're
dealing with health issues at the local community, then you need to
allow these local communities to do that.

If it means temporarily engaging in a sanctuary protection here, then
so be it if that protects our country. In the meantime, we need to
have national leadership, a president that would be able to bring
together the Congress and pass the kind of immigration laws that we
frankly don't have on the books today.

MS. KING: Thank you, Senator.

Tim, back to you.

MR. RUSSERT: Get all the candidates on the record -- anyone here
who would close down these sanctuary cities, not allow them to exist?
You would allow these sanctuary cities to exist?

REP. KUCINICH: I would like to say that we're forgetting who we
are as Americans, Tim. You have to remember the message of the Statue
of Liberty. That is who America is. "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses."

We're forgetting that. We should be talking about cancelling
NAFTA and WTO, giving workers' rights a premium in negotiations with
Mexico. It's a new direction.

MR. RUSSERT: The question is, you would allow these sanctuary
cities to disobey the federal law?

REP. KUCINICH: Absolutely, I -- you know what? The federal law
-- there's a moral law here.

MR. RUSSERT: All right.

REP. KUCINICH: And the moral law says that the immigrants are
being used and mistreated.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA: The federal law is not being enforced not because of
failures of local communities, because the federal government has not
done the job that it needs to do. And --

MR. RUSSERT: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to exist?

SENATOR OBAMA: What I would do as president is pass comprehensive
immigration reform. And the federal government should be doing, which
is controlling our borders but also providing a rational immigration
system, which we currently don't have.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you allow the sanctuary
cities to exist?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in addition to the general points that have
been made, that I agree with, why do they have sanctuary cities? In
large measure because if local law enforcement begins to act like
immigration enforcement officers, what that means is that you will
have people not reporting
crimes. You will have people hiding from
the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal
safety and security of all the citizens.

So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and
that's where it needs to be fixed.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey
the federal law.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I don't think there is any choice. The ICE
groups go in and raid individuals, but if you're a local police chief
and you're trying to solve a crime that you know people from the
immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you
if they think you're also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.

Local law enforcement has a different job than federal
immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has
totally abdicated its responsibility.

MR. RUSSERT: Real
fast.

MR. GRAVEL: Real fast? This whole nation should be a sanctuary
for the (war ?) -- for the world and bring the people in. What's
going on? Again, we're in fantasy-land. We're talking about a
problem, it's -- we're scapegoating the Latinos of our society because
we as a society are failing in education, we're failing in health
care,
we're failing in our crumbling infrastructure, and we're failing
by invading countries and spending our treasure.
That's what's wrong.

And so I'm ashamed, as an American, to be building a fence on our
southern border. That's not the America that I fought for.
(Applause.)

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you, Senator Gravel.

We're going to take a quick break. We have a lot more to talk
about and a lot more time. We are at Dartmouth College, Hanover,
(New) Hampshire. We'll be right back with the Democrats. (Applause.)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back live from Dartmouth College,
Hanover, New Hampshire, and we are resuming our debate.

Senator Dodd, let me start with you. President Bush predicted
that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee for president for your
party. You issued a statement that said, quote, "I can understand why
the president would want Senator Clinton to be the nominee."

What does that mean?

SENATOR CLINTON: (Laughs, laughter.)

SENATOR DODD: Well, if I were Hillary Clinton, I'd be very worried.

SENATOR CLINTON: (Laughs.)

SENATOR DODD: This is the same guy who said, "Way to go, Brownie,"
here. (Laughter, applause.) And I think "mission accomplished" was
the other one I saw. So in terms of being a prognosticator of events,
I'd say the president has somewhat of a bad record when it comes to
that.

But certainly we all respect and admire Hillary and can
understand
that as well. But this race is going to be won by voters
here in this state and Iowa and other caucus and primary states.
Making predictions in September or August about who's going to win
later on, I think, has proven to be rather faulty over the years. So
I look very much forward to the kind of race that develops.

I said -- I walked in here this evening, and a fellow walked up
to me and he said, "Anderson Cooper, what's happened to you here?"
(Laughter.) So I realized I have some gaining of ground to do here,
but nonetheless, I'm counting on the American people. Democrats make
a good choice in the coming months, not the president of the United
States predicting the winner in the Democratic primary.
MR. RUSSERT: But your statement said, "I can understand why the
president would want Senator Clinton." Why does George Bush want
Senator Clinton to be the nominee of the party? That's what you said.

SENATOR DODD: Well, being somewhat facetious Tim, obviously --

MR. RUSSERT: Ah.

SENATOR DODD: And the question here of whether or not you're
actually trying to in a sense encourage a certain outcome here. And
we all believe we'd be the best candidates. I certainly do, based on
26 years of working on every major domestic and foreign policy issue
of our country, having proven to get results for our nation, having
authored the Family and Medical Leave Act, child care legislation,
dealing in Latin America, dealing with financial services. I think
people want not only promises about what you'll do, but a proven
record of what you've been able to accomplish.

MR. RUSSERT: Experience and judgment have been two issues that
have been raised in this campaign. Senator Clinton, as first lady,
your major initiative was health care. You acknowledge that you did
some things wrong in that. Democrats and Republicans both rejected
your proposal. You said that the most important vote you cast in the
Senate was on the Iraq war. You voted for it.

If, in fact, you made fundamental misjudgments on health care as
first lady and the war as senator, why shouldn't Democratic voters
say, "She doesn't have the judgment to be president"?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Tim, I'm proud that I tried to get universal
health care back in '93 and '94. It was a tough fight. It was kind
of a lonely fight. But it was worth trying. And of course I've said
many times that I made mistakes.

But I think the biggest mistake was that we didn't take the
opportunity that was offered back them to move toward quality
affordable health care for every single American.

But I've come back with a different plan that I believe is much
better reflective of what people want, namely, an array of choices.
You can keep what you have. But if you're uninsured or you're
underinsured, you'll now have access to the congressional plan.

And I think it's a different time. Many more people -- in
business,
in labor, doctors, nurses, hospitals and especially American
families -- know that we have to change what we do in health care.
And I think that my experience on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue,
knowing how challenging it will be to take on the special interests,
which I've been taking on for a very long time, gives me a special
insight into what we must do. And I intend to be the health care
president. You see a lot of people with those stickers that say, "I'm
a health care voter." Well, I want to be the health care president.

And I think that finally there will be a consensus behind us to
do that. And I look forward to going into the White House and getting
that done, because I think it's the highest domestic priority that we
have right now.

MR. RUSSERT: Could the scaled bill down -- scaled-down bill that
you have now, which
is very similar to what Senator Chafee, a
Republican, had back in 1993 -- your bill today could have passed back
then, but you refused to compromise.

If you'll remember, there was a decision made by the Republicans then
that they would not support extending health care to every American.
I regret that, and so did the late Senator Chafee, because he and I
had many conversations about that.

But those arguments have been really discredited the last 15
years. People know that we can't sustain the course we're on without
doing more damage, more uninsured, more people denied the care that
their doctors say they need, even though they have insurance, driving
more doctors to distraction, overworking our
nurses. There's so much
that has happened that people can see with their own eyes now, that I
believe that we finally have a consensus to do what we should do.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, you said the other day, quote, "Do
you really believe that Senator Clinton can get more than 15 percent
of Republicans to vote for health care?" What
does that mean?

SENATOR BIDEN: No, what is means is that in order to get health
care, you're going to have to be able to persuade at least 15 percent
of the Republicans to vote for it.

MR. RUSSERT: And she cannot?

SENATOR BIDEN: I think it's going to be more difficult -- unfairly,
but I think it's more difficult for Hillary. Hillary, because she has
battled the special interests, and she has, but look at the special
interests. The special interests, with regard to Hillary, they feed
on this, you know, this Clinton-Bush
thing.

It's not Hillary's fault. But the fact of the matter is, it's
much more difficult to go out and convince a group of Republicans, I
would argue, getting something done that is of a major consequence.

I have experience doing that. I did it on the crime bill, I did it on
-- today, the first time we rejected -- fundamentally rejected the
president's policy. And I'm not suggesting it's Hillary's fault. I
think it's a reality that it's more difficult, because there's a lot
of very good things that come with all the great things that President
Clinton did. But there's also a lot of the old stuff that comes back.
It's kind of hard. When I say "old stuff," I'm referring to policy --
policy.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you said in effect that Senator
Clinton's mismanagement of health care meant that 40 million Americans
have not had it since 1993. That's a very serious charge.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, I didn't use the word "mismanagement." I
think Senator Clinton actually worked, as first lady at that time,
very hard for health care.

But here's -- I listen to this discussion, and this is what I
hear -- a bunch of people who've been in Washington a long time who
think that everything has to be done there. It's like the rest of
America doesn't exist. They're going to have a bunch of Washington
insiders who sit around tables together, negotiate, compromise,
insurance companies, drug companies, lobbyists, and they're going to
figure out together -- to the exclusion of the rest of America -- what
should be done about health care.

I think we actually need a president who's willing to go to
Americans and make the case for the need for universal health care.
And the thing that I have committed to do is the first day that I am
president, I will say to the Congress, to myself, to the vice
president, to the members of the Cabinet, if you have not passed
universal health care by July of this year, July of 2009, you lose
your health care because there is no excuse for politicians in
Washington to have health care coverage when America has no health
care coverage. (Applause.)

And I -- if I -- can I add one last thing?

MR. RUSSERT: Well, Senator, I want to ask you this because in
2004 when you ran for president, you said we could not afford
universal health care, it was not achievable, and it was not
responsible. You've changed dramatically on this issue.

MR. EDWARDS: That's true and so has America. I proposed
universal health care for children at that point, and what is clear
from this presidential campaign is I was the first presidential
candidate -- others have followed me now, and that's a good thing,
good thing for America -- but I was the first presidential candidate
to lay out a specific truly universal health care plan. And the one
thing I can tell you, as anybody who knows me, anybody who knows me
knows I will never give up.

What happened in '93 and '94 is we didn't get universal health
care, but we got NAFTA. And when I'm president of the United States,
you have my word I will never pull the universal health care bill. I
will put everything I have behind making sure that's enacted.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, I asked Senator Clinton about
experience in judgment. You have served in the U.S. Senate about 33
months. You have no landmark legislation as such that you have
offered. When you were elected back in 2004, you said, quote, "The
notion that somehow I am going to start running for higher office, it
just doesn't make sense."

If it didn't make sense in 2004, why does it make sense now?

SENATOR OBAMA: Because I think that the country is at a crossroads
right now and it needs three things. Number one, it needs somebody
who can bring the country together, and that's the kind of experience
that I bring to this office. When I was in the state legislature, I
was able to get people who were
polar opposites -- police officers and
law enforcement working with civil rights advocates to reform a death
penalty system that was broken; bringing people together, Republicans
and Democrats, to provide health insurance to people who didn't have
it. That's number one.

Number two, we need somebody who can take on the special
interests and win. And I have consistently done that. On money in
politics, in the state legislature I passed landmark ethics
legislation against not just Republicans but also some of the leaders
in my own party. I did the same thing working with Russ Feingold with
the ethics reform package that we passed last year.

And the third thing is telling the truth to the American people
even when it's tough, which I did in 2002, standing up against this
war at a time where it was very unpopular. And I was risking my
political career, because I was in the middle of a U.S. Senate race.

Now, those are, I think, the kinds of experiences that people are
looking for right now in this country, and that's the kind of
experience I bring to bear to this race.
I just want to make one last comment. I think Hillary Clinton
deserves credit for having worked on health care. I think John
deserves credit for his proposal. I know that, you know, he feels
that he put out his plan first. You know, Harry Truman put something
out 60 years ago for universal health care. I wrote about it in a
book that I wrote last year -- a plan very similar to John's.

The issue is not going to be who has these particular plans. It
has to do with who can inspire and mobilize the American people to get
it done and open up the process. If it was lonely for Hillary, part
of the reason it was lonely, Hillary, was because you closed the door
to a lot of potential allies in that process. At that time, 80
percent of Americans already wanted universal health care, but they
didn't feel like they were let into the process.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask Senator Gravel. You talk about
running for president of the United States. In 1980 your condo
business went bankrupt.

MR. GRAVEL: Correct.

MR. RUSSERT: In 2004 you filed for personal bankruptcy --

MR. GRAVEL: Correct.

MR. RUSSERT: -- leaving $85,000 in credit bills unpaid. How can
someone who did not take care of his business, could not manage his
own personal finances, say that he's capable of managing the country?

MR. GRAVEL: Well, first off, if you want to make a judgment of
who can be the greediest people in the world when they get to public
office, you could just look
up at the people up here. Money -- many
of them done very, very well in public office.

Now, you say the condo business. I'll tell you, Donald Trump has
been bankrupt a hundred times. So I went bankrupt once in business.

And the other -- who did I bankrupt? I stuck the credit card
companies with $90,000 worth of bills. And they deserved it, because
I used the money. (Laughter.) They deserved it, and I used the money
to finance the empowerment of the American people with the National
Initiative, so you can make the laws.

Now, Tim, let me just point one thing out.

MR. RUSSERT: All right.

MR. GRAVEL: You're asking about special interests.

MR. RUSSERT: You've made your point. You've made your point.

MR. GRAVEL: Well, I wanted to make a better point. (Laughter.)

MR. RUSSERT: Let me leave it at that, because I've got to give
everyone a chance.

Congressman Kucinich, when you were mayor of Cleveland, you let
Cleveland go into bankruptcy, the first time that happened since the
Depression. The voters of Cleveland rewarded you by throwing you out
of office and electing a Republican mayor of Cleveland. How can you
claim that you have the ability to manage the United States of
America, when you let Cleveland go bankrupt?

REP. KUCINICH: You know, Tim, that was NBC's story. Now I want
the people to know what the real story was.

I took a stand on behalf of the people of Cleveland to save a
municipal electric system. The banks and the utilities in Cleveland,
the private utilities, were trying to force me to sell that system.
And so on December 15th, 1978, I told the head of the biggest bank,
when he told me I had to sell the system in order to get the city's
credit renewed, that I wasn't going to do it because -- you know, I
remember where I came from.

I remembered my parents counting pennies to pay the utility bills in
one of the many apartments we lived in, and so I know why I went into
public office. I went in to stand up for the people. And the people
in Cleveland in 1994 asked me to come back to public life because at
that point they expanded a municipal electric system that the banks
demanded that I sell, and I showed the ability to stand up for the
people.

You know, my campaign in '94 was "because it was right," and
people put me in the Ohio Senate for that reason; '96 it was "light up
Congress" as a symbol of saving the municipal electric system; and
this year it's going to be "light up America" because I'm going to
challenge those interest groups. I put my job on the line. How many
people would be willing to put their job on the line in the face of
pressure from banks and utilities? As this story gets told, people
will want me to be their next president because they'll see in me not
only the ability to take a stand, but the ability to live with
integrity.

Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, you talk about your
experience, and yet when you were the secretary of Energy, there was
security breaches at Los Alamos. You talked about Justice White being
your favorite Supreme Court justice, someone who voted against Roe v.
Wade. New Mexico ranks 48 in terms of people below the poverty line,
48th in children below the poverty line.

You said that being gay is a choice. Based on those kinds of comments and that record of performance or questionable activities, how can you tell people you have the experience to be president?

GOV. RICHARDSON: I've been in public life 25 years. And, you
know, I may not be the perfect consultant, blow-dried candidate. I
make mistakes. I admit them.

But, you know, Tim, the issue is, do I deliver? I mean, your
network covered me five months ago when I brought back the remains of
five of our -- remains of Korean War soldiers. I also persuaded with
others, the North Koreans, to turn down their nuclear reactor.

As governor, today New Mexico's the sixth-fastest growing
economy. I've insured kids under 12. Those statistics were way
before me, but today, we have created a balanced budget. New Mexico
is the clean energy state. No one ever questioned me that I deliver
when I brought back American hostages and servicemen from Iraq, from
Saddam Hussein, from the North Koreans, from Darfur. I got a fragile
cease-fire. I received four Nobel Peace Prize nominations.

You know, sure, I've made mistakes, and I'm going to continue
making them, I can tell you right here.

But I also want you to know that the issue is, can you deliver? You
asked Senator Clinton. She's (a/the ?) candidate of experience.
Senator Obama, a fresh voice for change. With Bill Richardson, you
get both, change AND experience. (Laughter.) That's what I am
conveying to the American people.

You got to be able to deliver. To bring change, you have to have
the experience to deliver that change. And my record in terms of
foreign policy, energy policy, what I've done for my state, I'm the
only one who has negotiated with a foreign country here, I believe I
have the best of both to be this president.

MR. RUSSERT: I'd like to go to Alison King of New England Cable
News again for another question. Alison.

MS. KING: Thanks, Tim.

The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in
New England. For example, last year some parents of second graders in
Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's
teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who
marries another prince.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, but most of you
oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your
children as part of their school curriculum?

I'm going to start with Senator Edwards.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes, absolutely.

What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the
difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day,
the discrimination that they're faced with every single day of their
lives. And I suspect my two younger children -- Emma Claire, who's
nine, and Jack, who's seven -- will reach the same conclusion that my
daughter, Cate, who's 25, has reached, which is she doesn't understand
why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage, and she says her
generation will be the generation that brings about the great change
in America on that issue.

So I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children.
I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of
themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even
in -- did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough,
but even in second grade to be exposed to all --

MS. KING: Well, that's the point is second grade.

MR. EDWARDS: -- to all of those possibilities because I don't
want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on
behalf of my family or my children, as my wife, Elizabeth, who's
spoken her own mind on this issue. I don't get to impose on them what
it is that I believe is right.

But what I will do as president of the United States is I will
lead an effort to make sure that the same benefits that are available
to heterosexual couples -- 1,100, roughly, benefits in the federal
government -- are available to same-sex couples; that we get rid of
DOMA, the Defense Of Marriage Act; that we get rid of "don't ask,
don't tell," which is wrong today, was wrong when it was enacted back
in the 1990s.

I will be the president that leads a serious effort to deal with the
discrimination that exists today.

MS. KING: Thank you.

Senator Obama, you have young children at home. How do you feel
about this?

SENATOR OBAMA: You know, I feel very similar to John: that -- you
know, the fact is, my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old's -- I think, are
already aware that there are same-sex couples. And my wife and I have
talked about it.

And one of the things I want to communicate to my children is not
to be afraid of people who are different, and because there have been
times in our history where I was considered different, or Bill
Richardson was considered different.

And one of the things I think the next president has to do is to
stop fanning people's fears. You know, if we spend all our time
feeding the American people fear and conflict and division, then they
become fearful and conflicted and divided. And if we feed them hope,
and we feed them reason and tolerance, then they will become tolerant
and reasonable and hopeful. And that, I think, is one of the most
important things that the next president can do, is try to bring us
together and stop trying to fan the flames of division that have
become so -- so standard in our politics in Washington. That's the
kind of experience, by the way, that we need to put an end to.

MS. KING: Quickly, have you sat down with your daughters to talk
about same-sex marriage?

SENATOR OBAMA: My wife has.
MS. KING: Okay.

I'd like to ask Senator Clinton the same question.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I -- I really respect what both John and
Barack said. I think that we've seen differences used for divisive
purposes, for political purposes in the last several elections, and I
think every one of us on this stage are really personally opposed to
that and will do everything we can to prevent it.

With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter
of parental discretion. I think that obviously it is better to try to
work with your children, to help your children the many differences
that are in the world and to really respect other people and the
choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual
orientation.

So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights
will remain an important one in our country. And I hope that --
tomorrow we're going to vote on the hate crimes bill, and I'm sure
that those of us in the Senate will be there to vote for it. We
haven't been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to
send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness. And I
think that, you know, that's what the Democratic Party stands for in
contrast all too often to the other side.

MS. KING: Thank you, Senator.

Tim, back to you.

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you, Alison.

We're going to take another quick break. We're going to come
back and talk about something that affects this generation and the
next generation -- Social Security, Medicare and a whole lot more.
We'll be right back to the Democrats debate.

(Announcements.)

MR. RUSSERT: And we're back at Dartmouth College talking to the
Democrats.
I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare. The chairman
of the Federal Reserve, the head of the Government Accountability
Office, have both said that the number of people in America on Social
Security and Medicare is going to double in the next 20 years -- there
are now 40 million; it's going to go to 80 million -- and that if
nothing is done, we'll have to cut benefits in half or double the
taxes. That is their testimony.

Senator Biden, in order to prevent that, would you be willing to
consider certain steps? For example, back in 1983, Ronald Reagan and
Tip O'Neill, Pat Moynihan and Bob Dole got together and changed the
retirement age. It's going to be going up to 67 in a gradual
increase.

Right now, you pay tax for Social Security on your first $97,500
worth of income. Why not tax the entire income of every American?
And if you do that, you'll guarantee the solvency of Social Security
farther than your eye can see.

SEN. BIDEN: The answer is yes. I'm probably the only one up
here who's going to say that. But the truth of the matter is, you've
stated it. You're either going to cut benefits or you're going to go
ahead and raise taxes above the first $97,000.

And by the way, I was in that room with Pat Moynihan. It was Joe
Biden, Pat Moynihan, Bob Dole -- it was also George Mitchell -- when
we made that deal. I'll never forget Bob Dole turning to Pat Moynihan
and saying, we all got to jump in this boat at the same time.

So the bottom line here is, you can't do it by growing the
economy alone. So I would raise the cap.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you also, considering now life expectancy is
78, considering -- consider gradually raising the retirement age?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, we did that once, I supported that. That's
what got it solvent to 2041. By simply going and taking -- raising
the cap, you can solve the problem.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to
the American people, "I'm going to tax your income. I'm not going to
cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you're a millionaire, is going to
pay Social Security tax on every cent they make"?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this
because I know this is a particular concern of yours, but I want to
make three points very briefly.

First, I do think that it's important to talk about fiscal
responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us
toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social
Security solvent until 2055. Now, because of the return to deficits,
we've lost 14 years of solvency. It's now projected to be solvent
until 2041. Getting back on a path of fiscal responsibility is
absolutely essential.

Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process. You
described what happened in '83. It took presidential leadership, and
it took the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill to
reach the kind of resolution that was discussed.

And finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal
responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done.
But I think if you don't put fiscal responsibility first, you're going
to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the '90s it
had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at 97.5 off
the table.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I take everything off the table until we
move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan
process. I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do
as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the
table with.

MR. RUSSERT: But Senator Biden said you can't grow your way out
of this. And for the record, when the Clinton administration left
office, Social Security was only guaranteed to 2038, not 2055.

SENATOR CLINTON: There was a plan, on the basis of the balanced
budget and the surplus, to take it all the way to 2055.

MR. RUSSERT: A plan --

SENATOR CLINTON: And we know what happened. George Bush came in,
went back to deficits, and has basically used the Social Security
trust fund and borrowing from China --

MR. RUSSERT: But Senator --

SENATOR CLINTON: -- and other countries to pay for the
war.

MR. RUSSERT: -- a simple question.

A simple question. What do you put on the table? What are you
willing to look at to say, "We're not going to double the taxes, we're
not going to cut benefits in half; I'm willing to put everything on
the table, some things on the table, nothing on the table"?

SENATOR CLINTON: I'm not
putting anything on the proverbial table
until we move toward fiscal responsibility. I think it's a mistake to
do that.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama?

SENATOR OBAMA: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be
the best option.

Now we've got to have a process that's already been talked about.
Joe participated back in 1983. We need another one. And I think I've
said before everything should be on the table.

My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable to
the other options that are available.

But what's critical is to recognize that there is a potential
problem. As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire, I meet young
people who don't think Social Security is going to be there for them.
They don't believe it's going to be there for them. And I think
it's
important for us, in addition to getting our fiscal house in order, to
acknowledge, as Democrats, that there may be a problem that we've got
to take on. And we should be willing to do anything that will
strengthen the system, to make sure that that we are being true to the
sacred of those who are already retired, as well as young people in
the future. And we should reject things that will weaken the system,
including privatization, which essentially is going to put people's
retirement at the whim of the stock market.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, tax all income?

SENATOR DODD: I don't think you have to go that far. I understand
what Joe's point is here, but you could raise that tax far less than
all incomes here and achieve the same result by achieving solvency.

But beyond just the Social Security fix, Tim, there are a host of
other issues related to this. Pension security is critically
important for long-term security. Financial literacy is critically
important to people as well. Prescription drug issues are critically
important to that population, preventive care. We need to look at
doctors in a holistic way when it comes to our seniors.

Remember, it was only a few years ago, Tim, that the poorest
sector of our population in this country were our elderly. Because of
Medicare, because of Social
Security, because of leadership that stood
up and fought for it here, we've been able to take the older Americans
out of poverty and give them a sense of decency and a quality of life.

So issues like privatization, as been said here, have to be off
the table, and I believe you can achieve that solvency here by doing
simpler things without the draconian measures that some have
suggested. But you need to also deal with these other issues on the
table if you're going to provide that kind of financial security and
that quality of life for our older Americans.

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, would you lift the cap and
have taxes paid on income and not cap it at --

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, you don't need to do that. That's a 15
percent tax on small businesses, on the middle class, on family farms.
You don't need to do that.

This is what you do.

One, you take privatization off the table. You don't want Social
Security in the stock market.

Two, you stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, as the
Congress and the president constantly do.

MR. RUSSERT: You then would -- excuse me, excuse me -- you then
would have a deficit of over 300 billion (dollars) --

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, no, Tim. No, you don't.

MR. RUSSERT: Governor --

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, no, wait. What -- no, wait. Because I
know
--

MR. RUSSERT: It's not funny money; it's real money.
GOV. RICHARDSON: No, no, but what you do -- I am the only
candidate here that has said, I'm for a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. You have to have fiscal discipline. You've got
to also grow the economy. You have to have universal pensions.

Here's -- you know,
this estimate, and you've just talked about,
it's based on the growth of the economy, 1.3 percent. If it grows to
1.8, we don't have this. And if we -- if we balance the budget,
restore our fiscal house, there will be economic growth. If we invest
in education and have a stronger workforce, if we incentivize and have
a pro-growth economy, where we say we're going to make America green,
renewable energy, we're going to bring new jobs. Together --

MR. RUSSERT: Growing -- Governor, what you're saying is that
there's no pain in this. You can double the number of people on
Social Security, Medicare, and the life expectancy can go to 78. The
reason Franklin Roosevelt set the age of eligibility to 65 -- that was
life expectancy. You made it on the program for a month or two, and
that was it. You're going to have double the number of people on
these programs for 15 years, and you can do it by growing the economy.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Tim, I have said, I am for a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget within five
years. That is pain. You
don't do it in a recession; you don't do it in a war. But if you also
generate economic growth, this projection that you mentioned by the
year 2041 is based on 1.3 economic growth.

That is pathetic --

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards --

GOV. RICHARDSON: -- to grow the economy --

MR.
RUSSERT: -- can you grow your way out of this?

MR. EDWARDS: No, sir, you cannot, and I would say that the
single most important thing for anybody running for president is to be
willing to be honest with America. You cannot solve this problem just
by setting up a bipartisan commission. All
of us are for that. You
cannot solve this problem just by growing the economy. All of us are
for that.

But the American
people deserve to hear the truth. They have
heard so much politician double-talk on this issue. That's the reason
young people don't believe Social Security's going to be there for
them. Why would you possibly trust a bunch of politicians who say the
same thing over and over and over -- "We're going to grow our way out
of this" -- but nothing changes, nothing
changes.

The honest truth is there are hard choices to be made here. The
choice I would make as president of the United States is on the very
issue that you've asked about, which is the cap, and I have to say, I
have some difference with my friend, Chris Dodd, who I agree with a
lot. But I don't understand why somebody who makes $50 million a year
pays Social Security tax on the first $97,000, and somebody -- and not
all the rest, while somebody who makes $85,000 a year pays Social
Security tax on every dime of their income.

SENATOR DODD: Well, John --

MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry, Chris. Let me just finish. I'll let
you respond, but I want to say one last thing about this.

I do have some difference with some of our colleagues who I've
heard talk about
this.
I think we have to be very careful to protect the middle class, so,
specifically -- if I can be very specific -- what I would do as
president is I would create a protective zone between 97,000 (dollars)
up to around 200,000 (dollars) because there are a lot of firefighter
couples, for example, that make $100(,000), $115,000 a year. We don't
want to raise taxes on them. But I do believe that people who make
$50 (million), $75 (million), $100 million a year ought to be paying
Social Security taxes on that income.

SENATOR DODD: Can I --

REP. KUCINICH: I think --

MR. RUSSERT: Real fast.

REP. KUCINICH: You know, of course we ought to be raising the
cap in order to protect Social Security, which is solid through about
2040 without any changes whatsoever. But what everyone should realize
in this country is that Wall Street is very interested in
privatization. And unless we have a president who states very clearly
no privatization, believes in economic growth -- and I'm talking about
a new WPA, a Works Green Administration, creating technologies for a
green America -- we have to believe in economic growth. We should
raise the ceiling.

And in addition to that, Tim, we should be thinking about
lowering -- lowering -- the retirement age to 65. People's bodies
break down. There are people who are retiring early; they don't have
the kind of economic help they should get. We should be thinking
raise the cap, lower the retirement age to 65, stop privatization,
increased economic growth.

What I was suggesting here -- Joe, I think, said we tax
everybody. I -- he clearly --

SENATOR BIDEN: No, no, I'm with you.

SENATOR DODD: -- that you don't have to do that. (Laughter.)

(Chuckling.) I'm sure you would, Joe.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thanks for invoking my name.

SENATOR DODD: And -- and -- but you could do this by basically
readjusting that tax so you don't have to -- doesn't have to affect
everyone in society.

So, John, I'm not suggesting it just be --

MR. :
But you'd raise it to 500,000 (dollars)?

SENATOR DODD: But you've got to raise it up, clearly, to do this.

Let me also say something, look, because all of this comes down
to one other issue, Tim, clearly. Joe made the point earlier. We can
all talk about this. No one political party is going to do this.
It's going to take people who can bring people together to get the job
done. And you need to demonstrate not just the experience but the
proven ability to actually get results by bringing people together to
do things that were difficult to accomplish. That's what I've done
for 26 years. I know how to do this. And I think the American people
are looking for leadership that -- not just make promises about what
they're going to do, but the ability to bring elements together, as
you had happen with Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill and Bob Dole and Pat
Moynihan. That kind of leadership is missing today. That's what the
American people want back.

MR. : I want to --

SENATOR CLINTON: Tim, I just have to insert something here. You
know, the Democrats are against privatization. I fought against it.
We all did.

But in the interests of, I think, facts, we were on a
pathway, at
the end of the Clinton administration, in the words of Alan Greenspan,
of eliminating the debt.

That was one of the excuses he gave when he voted for those horrible
tax cuts in 2001, that he was so worried we would actually eliminate
the debt.

So I think it's important that you cannot give away what you're
going to be negotiating over when it comes to Social Security until
you make it clear that fiscal responsibility has got to be the premise
of the negotiation. And if you don't lead with that and if you don't
point to the fact that the Democrats are much better stewards of our
country's budget then the Republicans are -- because once again we're
in a mess after this President Bush leaves office -- then you're going
to be negotiating with yourself, and I think that's a mistake.

MR. RUSSERT: But Senator Clinton --

SENATOR CLINTON: Put fiscal responsibility --

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton -- Senator Clinton -- Senator
Clinton, you would acknowledge that the programs as they are now
constructed will not exist unless significant changes are made in them
for the next generation.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I think we have to make some significant
changes, and I've told you where I would start from and what I would
do. And I think it's a mistake to be negotiating over what you will
give away before you even get to the bipartisan process, because the
fiscal responsibility -- (interrupted by cross talk) --

MR. RUSSERT: One second -- one second here. I want to turn to
another health issue because this is important before I bring Allison
in.

Over 400,000 Americans have premature death due to smoking or
secondhand smoke.

Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of a national law to ban
smoking in all public places?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, we banned it in New York City. And people
thought it would be a terrible idea, and everyone was really upset
about it. And actually business at a lot of establishments, like
restaurants and other places, increased, because many people felt more
comfortable going when there was no smoking.

I think that we should be moving toward a bill that I have
supported to regulate tobacco through the FDA. And once it has those
health warnings and once the FDA can regulate it, I think that will
give a lot of support to local communities to make these, what are
essentially
zoning decisions. And I'd fully support that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you're not in favor of a national law to ban
smoking in public places?

SENATOR CLINTON: Not at this point. I think we're making progress
at the local level.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, a national law to ban smoking in all
public places?

SENATOR OBAMA: I think that local communities are making enormous
strides, and I think they're doing the right thing on this. If it
turns out that we're not seeing enough progress at the local level,
then I would favor a national law. I don't think we've seen the local
laws play themselves
out entirely, because I think you're seeing an
enormous amount of progress in Chicago, in New York, in other major
cities around the country. And because I think we have been treating
this as a public health problem and educating the public on the
dangers of secondhand smoke, that that pressure will continue.

MR. RUSSERT: Have you been successful in stopping smoking?

SENATOR OBAMA: I have. The -- you know, the best cure is my wife.
(Laughter.)

MR. RUSSERT: Is there anybody here who's in favor of a national
law to ban smoking?

(Cross talk.)

SENATOR BIDEN: I would ban -- yes. I would ban -- and all
publicly, nationally. And one other point I want to make on this --

SENATOR DODD: Three thousand kids start smoking every day in this
country.

MR. RUSSERT: Okay. So Biden, Dodd, Richardson.

GOV. RICHARDSON: I did it in New Mexico as a national law.

MR. RUSSERT: Kucinich and Gravel.

REP. KUCINICH: Wait a minute. I've been breathing in a lot of
secondhand smoke here tonight. (Cheers.) You bet I'll go for a
national law. (Continued cheers, applause.)

MR. RUSSERT: All right. So Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel and
Kucinich in favor of a national law.

Alison, you're up.

MR. EDWARDS: Wait, wait, wait, and Edwards.

MR. RUSSERT: And Edwards.

MS.
KING: Susan Renacle (sp) of Canaan, New Hampshire, the
mother of two young adult sons, believes that the legal drinking age
of 21 is counterproductive and unrealistic, especially, she says,
because -- (interrupted by applause, cheers) --

SENATOR CLINTON: (Laughs.)

MS. KING: -- especially because we trust people of this age to
make life and death decisions in our military.

Would you as president remove the requirement that a state have a
legal drinking age of 21 in order to receive federal highway funds,
thereby returning the drinking age back to the
states?

Senator Biden.

SENATOR BIDEN: Absolutely no, I would not. You've got to calculate
the cost here. The cost of alcoholism in America, the cost of
accidents that flow from drunkenness, are astronomical. There are
300,000 babies born deformed every year in this country because of
women who are alcoholics while they're carrying those children to
term.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a gigantic problem, just like the
drug issue. And the idea that we're going to suggest that it makes
good sense to move the age down to 18 I find to be counterproductive.
I would not do that.

And the last point I'll make is, presidents are supposed to lead.
How do you go out and negotiate, use health care and the Social
Security system as a negotiating tool to deal with the federal
deficit? You're supposed to lead. You lay out what you want to
do.
You're not negotiating with yourself, you're negotiating to protect
the system. And you can't use the system as a negotiating tool to get
to a balanced budget any more than you can turn around and suggest
that somehow lowering the drinking age to 18 is going to make anything
better in America. Anything.

MS. KING: I'd like to hear from a few more of you on this, if
you could keep it to 30 seconds. Senator Dodd.

SENATOR DODD: No, I -- I agree with Joe on this. Look, the
problems associated with alcohol are significant in our country. The
evidence is overwhelming. And the idea
that we're going to lower the
drinking age, we know that in that age group here -- and again, you
can -- we have significant statistics -- are that -- (inaudible word)
-- 50,000 people lose their lives in automobiles every year in this
country, many of them because of the use of alcohol.

But let me also add here as well on that smoking issue, because
it is important and it's related -- with 3,000 young people starting
to smoke every single day, one of the major causes of the health care
issue, Tim, that you're raising earlier -- and Medicare -- is because
of chronic illnesses associated with things like smoking. So the idea
that we wouldn't draft a national law to stop this in public places is
one of the things you're going to have to do if you're going to deal
with rising health care costs -- (inaudible) -- and the same is true
with alcohol.

MS. KING: Thank you.

Senator Richardson -- Governor Richardson.

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, I wouldn't lower it. In fact, at this
moment, my wife is hosting in New Mexico with the surgeon general a
forum on underage drinking.

I think what you need, though, is a dual approach. Yes, we need
to have strong law enforcement against DWI, against so many other law-
related issues, but you also have to have treatment. You have to have
substance abuse treatment, you have to education, you have to have
rehabilitation, and the federal government to the states is not
providing the resources and the leadership that we need. So just as
much we don't lower the drinking age, you have to have more of a
national commitment to rehabilitation and to research.

We need to have more research for diabetes, for cancer, for stem
cell research, for heart disease. We're a nation -- let me just make
one final point.

We spend $6 billion on cancer research. That is two weeks of the Iraq
war. That shows the mistaken priorities that we have in this country.

MR. RUSSERT: In the interest of time, is there anybody here,
from Obama down to Gravel, who thinks we should lower the drinking age
back to 18?

MR. GRAVEL: I think we should lower it to -- anybody that can go
fight and die for this country should be able to drink. (Applause.)

MR. RUSSERT: Eighteen?

Kucinich -- Congressman Kucinich? You said yes.

REP. KUCINICH: You know, I think that not only about service,
but we have to have confidence in young Americans. And a president
who reaches out to them and talks to them about drinking responsibly
is much better than a president who tells them, "Thou shalt not,"
because young people will do what they do, but they're looking for
leadership from a president. I'm ready to provide that leadership.

Of course they should be able to drink at age 18, and they should
be able to vote at age 16.

MR. RUSSERT: Obama, Edwards, Clinton are all no on 18?

SENATOR OBAMA: No.

MR. RUSSERT: No.

MR. EDWARDS: What was the question?

MR. RUSSERT: Lower the drinking age to 18.

MR. EDWARDS: I would not.

MR. RUSSERT: Okay.

We're going to take a break and come back with our lightning
round -- 30 seconds to answer each question.

SENATOR CLINTON: (Chuckles.)

MR. RUSSERT: We'll be right back.

SENATOR DODD: You never got to the real round.

SENATOR CLINTON: (Chuckles.)

(Announcements.)

MR. RUSSERT: We are back in New Hampshire.

Politicians spend millions of dollars on TV commercials, which
last 30 seconds. We want to demonstrate to the American voters
tonight that you can answer a question in 30 seconds. (Laughter.)

Here we go.

Senator Obama, you go around the country saying it's time to turn
the page. Are you talking
about the Bushes, the Clintons or both?

SENATOR OBAMA: What I'm talking about is ending the divisive
politics that we have in this country. I think it is important for us
as Democrats to be clear about what we stand for. But I think we also
have to invite Republicans and independents to join us in a
progressive agenda for universal health care, to make sure that they
are included in conversations about improving our education system and
properly funding our public schools. I think turning the page means
that we've got to get over the special interest-driven politics that
we've become accustomed to. And most importantly it's important for
us to make sure that we're telling the truth to the American people
about the choices we face.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, if you are the nominee, it will be
28 years, from 1980 to 2008, where there's been a Bush or a Clinton on
the national
ticket. (Laughter.) Is it healthy for democracy to have
a two-family political dynasty? (Laughter.)

SENATOR CLINTON: I thought Bill was a pretty good
president.
(Cheers, applause.) And from my perspective, you know, the values
that he acted on on behalf of our country, both at home and abroad,
are ones that stand the test of time.

But look, I'm running on my own. I'm going to the people on my own. I think I know how to find common ground and how to stand my ground. And on all the issues that matter to America in the 21st century, I wish we could turn the clock back, but we can't. And we need to start with leadership that can deliver results and get us back to the values that make America great.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, do you believe that MoveOn.org has changed politics for the better?

SENATOR BIDEN: I don't think they've changed politics.

MR. RUSSERT: Have they been a positive force in politics? (Laughter.)

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, the -- on some things, yes. I mean, look, you can -- I don't think you can castigate them for the ad, I think. But the idea that I was initially told -- I'm going to get in trouble for this, but -- that the quote, "It's their party" -- they're part of the party. It's not their party.

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Kucinich, Alan Greenspan in his book wrote something that has not received any notice. He advocates raising taxes on gasoline $3 a gallon over the next 10 years because he said there is no way we will wean ourself off of gasoline-driven automobiles and convert to something else like Brazil, which uses sugarcane. Would you be in favor of a phased-in, $3-a-gallon gasoline tax?

REP. KUCINICH: No. And he said something else that didn't receive much notice.
He said that the Iraq war was about oil -- something that I said on "Meet the Press," Tim, on February 23rd, 2003.
I think that we need to make sure that the next president was right about Iraq, was right about the Patriot Act. You can have a president like that -- that was right about Iraq, who voted against it from the beginning, and against the funding. You can have a president who voted against -- who is for a single payer not-for-profit health care system, one who will stop the Patriot Act --

MR. RUSSERT: Time.

REP. KUCINICH: -- or you can have a president who's tall. (Laughter, applause.)

MR. RUSSERT: Would anyone here raise the gasoline tax in order to wean America off of Middle East oil?

MR. GRAVEL: First off, let me qualify it. I would ask the Congress -- they don't do it -- but then I would empower the American people to do it, and that is to put a carbon tax on.
If we don't do something drastic -- and we can get off of gasoline in five years, and we can get off of carbon in 10 years; all we got to do is want to do it. And to put a tax on gasoline permits politicians and bureaucrats to play favorites. You do it right at the lump of coal, and you do at the gas, and you do it at the oil, and then let it filter through the system properly.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, you have --

SENATOR DODD: I've advocated -- (inaudible).

MR. RUSSERT: Yes, you have a carbon tax. I have another question for you, however.

You have two daughters, 6 and 2. Christmas is coming. Would you favor a temporary ban on the importation of all toys from China until we are convinced that they're not coming into our country and harming our children?

SENATOR DODD: if you promise not to tell my children, I will. (Laughter.) Certainly. Look, I advocated this some time ago here. We would shut down a company in this country in 20 minutes if they were using excessive lead paint, sending toothpaste and animal food to this country that was contaminated and causing great harm and danger to people here. The idea that the president would not suspend the importation of those products to our country I think was terribly wrong-headed. And certainly I would advocate that that be done until we have the guarantees of security.
And beyond this issue, we ought to establish in this country, given the amount of products we now bring into this country offshore, that there is some sort of ability here to make some judgment about the safety and security of these products coming in, certainly before they leave their country. So I would certainly do that.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you were criticized by Jesse Jackson and others about your -- in their words -- tepid response about the situation in Jena involving civil rights difficulties in Louisiana. Should you have gone to Jena, Louisiana, in order to try to bring those communities together?

SENATOR OBAMA: No, because I was in Washington at that time trying to bring an end to the war in Iraq, and that was something that was critical.
The fact is that I was -- before any of the other candidates on this stage, spoke out with respect to Jena. I put out several strong statements, including ones prepared with Jesse Jackson's son, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. And, subsequently, I think Reverend Jackson acknowledged that.
This is an issue that's not black or white. It's an issue of American justice. We've got to make sure the justice system works for every single person.

Mr. RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, if you're president of the United States you're automatically honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts of America. In light of that organization's position on sexual orientation, would you accept that position?

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, I wouldn't. Because I think, as president, I would commit myself, number one, that I will be a leader that prevents discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation. I will also be a president that follows the Constitution of the United States.

I will also be a president that will bring back habeas corpus and the rule of law. I will also be a president that will shut down Guantanamo. I will also be a president that will follow the Constitution and not permit torture as a tool in our foreign policy. I will not eavesdrop on American citizens. And I will not go to war, unless I get the consent of Congress.

And there are still basic differences on the war. My plans ends the war, getting the troops out, and with all due respect to Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, Senator Clinton, what I heard tonight is that even in their second terms, they will not get the troops out. Therefore, the war will not end.

Mr. RUSSERT: Senator Obama?

SENATOR OBAMA: You know, I'm happy to have this discussion again, Bill. I think it is important to tell the American people the truth. Now, military commanders indicate that they can safely get combat troops out at the pace of one to two brigades a month. That is the quickest pace that we can do it safely. I have said I will begin immediately and we will do it as rapidly as we can.

It is the same issue with Social Security, where the pretense is that somehow we can do this magically. We can't. I think it's important for the next president to tell the American people not just what they want to hear, or to tell our own base what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. They need to hear...

MR. RUSSERT: I've got to move on and give Senator Edwards a chance.
Senator Edwards, you heard Alan Greenspan recommending raising gasoline tax. We do have a dependency on foreign oil which all across America people say we must become energy independent.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you be in favor of developing more nuclear power here in the United States?

MR. EDWARDS: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Period?

MR. EDWARDS: No. So that was less than 30 seconds.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, nuclear power?

OBAMA: I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store it properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism. And if we can do that in a technologically sound way, then we should pursue it. If we can't, we should not.

But there is no magic bullet on energy. We're going to have to look at all the various options to reduce greenhouse gases and to put us on a path to energy independence.

RUSSERT: Congressman?

KUCINICH: Well, first of all, you know, I know a little bit about this because I actually blocked a nuclear dump in Ohio. And I was one of the few up here who actually spoke against having a nuclear dump in Nevada.

The truth of the matter is that nuclear power is very expensive, Tim.

KUCINICH: They never factored in the cost of storage, which continues forever.
I want to keep utility rates low by having a Works Green Administration, emphasis on solar and wind, drive down this energy curve of hydrocarbon consumption.
And, finally, no more war as an instrument of policy. No more resource wars. We've got to make the transition away from oil, and that's what a Kucinich administration would do.

RUSSERT: Nuclear power?

GRAVEL: Not at all. The solution obviously is wind power. If we manufactured 5 million of these 2.5 meg windmills across the country, we could electrify the entire nation -- the entire nation. I'm talking about our transportation system.

Why don't we do that? We know the -- this is technology off the shelf. That's why I kept saying, we can get off of gasoline in five years; we can get off of carbon in 10 years.

GRAVEL: All we've got to want is to do it. And it will take the American people, because they can't get that through the Congress.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you rule out expanding nuclear power?

CLINTON: No, but it would not be one of the options that I favor, unless, number one, the cost can get down for the construction and operation; number two, that we have a viable solution for the nuclear waste.
I voted against Yucca Mountain. I've spoken out against Yucca Mountain. I think that recently the discovery -- there's an earthquake fault going under the proposed site at Yucca Mountain -- certainly validates my opposition.
So there are a lot of very difficult questions.
But we're going to have to look at the entire energy profile, in order to determine how we're going to move away from our dependence upon carbon-based fuels. And I will look at everything, but there are some tough questions you'd have to answer with respect to nuclear.

RUSSERT: I want to move to another subject, and this involves a comment that a guest on Meet the Press made, and I want to read it, as follows: Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is.

RUSSERT: Don't we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.

President (sic) Obama -- would you do that as president?

OBAMA: America cannot sanction torture. It's a very straightforward principle, and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals and emergency situations and I will make that judgment at that time.
But what we cannot do is have the president of the United States state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world.

RUSSERT: Senator Biden, would you allow this presidential exception?

BIDEN: No, I would not. And I met, up here in New Hampshire, with 17 three- and four-star generals who, after my making a speech at Drake Law School, pointing out I would not under any circumstances sanction torture, I thought they were about to read me the riot act.

BIDEN: Seventeen of our four-star, three-star generals said,

Biden, will you make a commitment you will never use torture? It does not work.
It is part of the reason why we got the faulty information on Iraq in the first place is because it was engaged in by one person who gave whatever answer they thought they were going to give in order to stop being tortured. It doesn't work. It should be no part of our policy ever -- ever.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, this is the number three man in Al Qaida. We know there's a bomb about to go off, and we have three days, and we know this guy knows where it is.
Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?

CLINTON: You know, Tim, I agree with what Joe and Barack have said. As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period.
I met with those same three- and four-star retired generals, and their principal point -- in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit -- is that there is very little evidence that it works.

CLINTON: Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies.
But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path.

RUSSERT: The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you.

CLINTON: Well, he's not standing here right now.

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT: So there is a disagreement?

CLINTON: Well, I'll talk to him later.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT: Well, that raises a question: Which foreign policy decisions of the Clinton administration were you involved in or did you advise?

CLINTON: Well, I have always said that my husband and I started a conversation 36 years ago and it never stopped. So I was certainly involved in talking about a lot of what went on in terms of the president's decisions. But I know very well that the president makes the decision. Everyone in the White House is there because of one person -- the president -- including the spouse of the president.

Ultimately, the president has to sift through everything that is recommended and make her decision. What I believe is that it is the ultimate responsibility of a president to seek out a broad cross- section of advisers who will have different points of view and provide different perspectives, and that's what I intend to do, and that is certainly what my husband did as well.

RUSSERT: Anyone else what to disagree with President Clinton on torture?

DODD: Yes, I do.

RUSSERT: Go ahead, Senator Dodd.

DODD: Not that I disagree, but this was all part of the Military Commissions Act which was adopted last fall.

DODD: There were only a handful of us that voted against it at the time. And I've written legislation to overturn it. I'll offer no better witness here than John McCain, who said that during those terrible years he was incarcerated and tortured, he would say anything to those interrogators in order to stop the physical pain. So we need to reinforce the idea here; this is a dreadful way to collect information.

We need to do other things to make sure it happens. But walking away from international conventions, as we did with the Geneva Conventions to disallow the restrictions on torture, I think, is a mistake, and also to walk away from habeas corpus.

But leadership requires you try and do something about it. And I'm doing something about it by trying to get the Congress to overturn that legislation...

RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, this is an exception to offer a pardon to someone or to do a presidential finding because it's someone who knows a bomb is going off...

RICHARDSON: No. I will do everything I can to fight terrorists. That's the main obligation of the American people. But that doesn't mean we become like terrorists and abridge our own freedoms. What the Bush administration has been using is called waterboarding. That is unacceptable not just with the Geneva Conventions, but in the spirit of our nation being a nation that respects human rights. That's not us. I would not permit it.

RICHARDSON: And, furthermore, I would not permit -- and here's another issue that I would like the Senate to take back -- the president of the United States has today unequaled authority to eavesdrop on American citizens, without a court order. The Congress needs to go back and rescind that.

RUSSERT: Time.

RICHARDSON: That is another abridgement that needs to stop.

RUSSERT: Thank you, Governor.

Senator Edwards, the exception?

EDWARDS: The only thing I would -- I agree with what's been said. The only thing I would add is the problem is much bigger than this specific hypothetical illustrates. Because what's happened is, what America is has been undermined over the last seven years. And torture is a component of that, or the condoning of torture is a component of it. But it is only one component.

In addition to the torture, we need to be ending this war in Iraq. I will close Guantanamo, which I think is a national embarrassment. The idea that the United States of America would hold anybody without a right to a hearing undermines everything that we represent.

No more secret prisons. Not when I'm president of the United States.

And not only no more secret prisons; I will, the first day that I'm president, end the illegal spying on the American people.

BIDEN: Question, Tim, did you say pardon, as well?

I'd pardon the son of a gun, if I got an atom bomb.

RUSSERT: That was -- that was the scenario that President Clinton laid out.

BIDEN: OK. Well, I would pardon -- I would not torture, but if I thought I'd get the hydrogen bomb this guy had planted, I'd say,
Man, you're out. And then I'd figure out how he got taken care of later. But I would...

(LAUGHTER)

... I would pardon him.

RUSSERT: So you would be in favor of...

BIDEN: I'd pardon him, not torture. Not torture.

RUSSERT: No. It would be pardoning the person who...

BIDEN: Oh, did the torture. No, no, no.

RUSSERT: Fair enough. All right.

(LAUGHTER)

Real fast -- 30 seconds.

BIDEN: I thought you meant pardon the...

KUCINICH: Thirty seconds -- you're on my time.

The metaphor that we're using here is one that relates to, really, 9/11 and the terror that followed, and the politicization of fear which occurred in this society.

A Kucinich administration will be about strength through peace. No unilateralism, no preemption, no first-strike, using -- and a rejection of war as an instrument of policy.

So of course you'd use a pardon, but we have to remember, this Constitution has to be redeemed and this administration has took us down a -- really, a (inaudible).

I will not only restore the Constitution, but I want a new national security doctrine, strength through peace, that will make us safer, because the neo kind approach has made America less safe and more vulnerable.

RUSSERT: I want to turn to politics and money. Senator Clinton, as you all know, you had to turn back $850,000 in contributions from Norman Hsu because of his rather checkered past.

Again, President Clinton said this, Now, we don't have to publish all our donors for the Clinton Foundation, but if Hillary became president, I think there would questions about whether people would try to win favor by giving money to me.

In light of that, do you believe that the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton library should publish all the donors who give contributions to those two entities?

CLINTON: Well, Tim, I actually co-sponsored legislation that would have sitting presidents reveal any donation to their presidential library, and I think that's a good policy.

RUSSERT: And the foundation?

CLINTON: Well, it would be the same, because that's where the library comes from.

RUSSERT: Until such legislation, would they voluntarily, the Clinton library and Clinton Foundation, make their donors public?

RUSSERT: Is there anyone here who doesn't believe that presidential libraries and presidential foundations should make public all their donors?

OBAMA: I just want to amplify on this issue. Because I think it's important not only that all this information is disclosed, but I also think that we need to have a situation in which we are disclosing the funneling of large donors.

And that is something that we were able to successfully do. I pushed it with Russ Feingold to make sure that large funnelers who were lobbyists were disclosed.

We are now in the process of presenting a bill where any large bundler has to disclose who they're bundling money from and who are they funneling it to. And I think that should be passed right away.

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you mentioned candor with the candidate -- president with the American people. Your campaign has hit some obstacles with revelations about $400 haircuts, $500,000 for working for a hedge fund, $800,000 from Rupert Murdoch.

Do you wish you hadn't taken money in all those cases or hadn't made that kind of expenditure for a haircut?

EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I think if you look at my entire life, I am proud of what I've spent my life doing. I'm not perfect. There's not a single person on this stage who's perfect, but I came from a family.

I was born into nothing. I was brought home to a two-room house in a mill village. I have spent my entire life fighting for the kind of people that I grew up with. They worked in the mill with my father. And I don't apologize for the fact that I have worked hard and built a life which I hope will make life easier for my children. I'm proud of that. I'm not ashamed of that.

And I am proud of having stood up for the people that I grew up with. It's what I have done my entire life. I did it for 20 years as lawyer. It's what I've done every minute that I've been in public life.

It is the reason that I've been going around the country helping organize workers into unions. It is the reason we started a College for Everyone program for low-income kids. It is the reason Elizabeth and I started an after-school program for kids who otherwise would have no chance to go to an after-school program, having access to technology.

I'm proud of what I've done with my life, and I do not apologize for it.

EDWARDS: And I do not apologize for it.

RUSSERT: But the hedge fund, as you know, had subprime mortgages, many of which defaulted in the Katrina area. If you had to do it all over again, would you not have taken that money?

EDWARDS: But look at what I've done. Look at what I've done.

RUSSERT: I'm...

EDWARDS: No, wait a second. You asked me the question.

RUSSERT: The specific example.

EDWARDS: Please let me respond.

RUSSERT: Specific example.

EDWARDS: Look at what I've done. When that issue came up in New Orleans, what I did is went to ACORN, an organization I had worked with in New Orleans, and we actually set up a fund to help people whose homes were being foreclosed on in New Orleans.

I helped raise the money for that fund. Elizabeth and I made a big contribution to it ourselves, because we feel -- I feel a personal commitment to help families whose lives have been devastated. It's why I have made central to my entire campaign the issue of poverty in America.

And I am perfectly happy to have anybody in America, any voter in New Hampshire, any voter anywhere in this country judge me based on what I've done in my life.

RUSSERT: Before we go, there's been a lot of discussion about the Democrats and the issue of faith and values. I want to ask you a simple question.

Senator Obama, what is your favorite Bible verse?

OBAMA: Well, I think it would have to be the Sermon on the Mount, because it expresses a basic principle that I think we've lost over the last six years.

John talked about what we've lost. Part of what we've lost is a sense of empathy towards each other. We have been governed in fear and division, and you know, we talk about the federal deficit, but we don't talk enough about the empathy deficit, a sense that I stand in somebody else's shoes, I see through their eyes. People who are struggling trying to figure out how to pay the gas bill, or try to send their kids to college. We are not thinking about them at the federal level.

That's the reason I'm running for president, because I want to restore that.

RUSSERT: I want to give everyone a chance in this. You just take 10 seconds.

Senator Clinton, favorite Bible verse?

CLINTON: The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I think it's a good rule for politics, too.

RUSSERT: Senator Gravel?

GRAVEL: The most important thing in life is love. That's what empowers courage, and courage implements the rest of our virtues.

RUSSERT: Congressman Kucinich?

KUCINICH: I carry that with me at every debate, this prayer from St. Francis, which says, Lord, make me an instrument of your peace, and I believe very strongly that all of us can be instruments of peace. And that's what I try to bring to public life.

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS: It appears many times in the Bible, What you do onto the least of those, you do onto me.

RUSSERT: Governor Richardson?

RICHARDSON: The Sermon on the Mount, because I believe it's an issue of social justice, equality, brotherly issues reflecting a nation that is deeply torn and needs to be heal and come together.

DODD: The Good Samaritan would be a worthwhile sort of description of who we all ought to be in life.

RUSSERT: Senator Biden?

BIDEN: Christ's warning of the Pharisees. There are many Pharisees, and it's part of what has bankrupted some people's view about religion. And I worry about the Pharisees.

RUSSERT: I want to thank you all for your answers this evening.

I want to ask Allison King for one more question. This, after all, is New Hampshire. She wants to ask you about baseball.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: For many here, in New England, the answer to this next question may be the most important one you answer tonight.

(LAUGHTER)

Red Sox or Yankees?

Governor Richardson?

(APPLAUSE)

(LAUGHTER)

DODD: What is it now, Bill? Come on.

RICHARDSON: Red Sox, because Manny Ramirez is back. The Red Sox will win the penant and they will win the World Series.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Senator Clinton?

KUCINICH: You know, I've got to take exception to this. Cleveland Indians won the central division, 92 victories -- they're going to the World Series.

(LAUGHTER)

Hi, mom.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Senator Clinton, where are you on this? Red Sox or Yankees?

CLINTON: Well, I hate to say it in front of this New Hampshire crowd -- I'm a Yankees fan. Have been for a long, long time.

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, what a bout a World Series -- Yankees and Cubs?

CLINTON: Well, you know, I've worried about that because I think, given the Cubs' record, which of course, I hope it happens, but it could very well be a sign of the coming apocalypse, were that to ever occur.

(LAUGHTER)

It would be so out of history that you would have the Cubs versus the Yanks. Then I'd be really in trouble.

RUSSERT: But who would you be for?

CLINTON: Well, I would probably have to alternate sides.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT: Spoken like a true sports fan.

Senator Gravel, Yankees, Red Sox?

GRAVEL: I'm from New England. I was born in Massachusetts. Do you have to ask that question?

DODD: Who's going to be the president of Red Sox nation? We all want to tune into that one.

RUSSERT: Biden?

BIDEN: I was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, by a grandfather, if you weren't a Yankees fan you didn't eat. Yankees.

(LAUGHTER)

RUSSERT: Thank you all.

Thank you voters of New Hampshire and all across the country for watching the Democratic candidates tonight.

(APPLAUSE)

And thank you, Dartmouth.

Our thanks to New England Cable News, Dartmouth College. The broadcast re-airs tonight, 1 a.m. Eastern on MSNBC.
If you want to see the Republican candidates in a similar setting, NBC will bring you the debate from Dearborn, Michigan, October 9th. I'll see you this Sunday on Meet the Press.